Voter ID

The state Supreme Court could have resolved the Voter ID sham by killing the voter suppression effort for at least this election. Instead, it punted it back to Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson, who has upheld the law once already.

I’ve made my views clear, and none of the many emails, letters and phone calls I’ve received since then have changed my mind.

Yes, you have to produce ID to board a plane and for many other things. But these are not constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Yes, if we had a problem with voter identification fraud, you could make a strong case for tighter requirements. But it isn’t a problem, in Pennsylvania or nationwide, and it’s not for a lack of searching by the Bush administration and others. The Corbett administration acknowledged this in court filings in this case.

There has been some voter registration fraud and absentee ballot fraud. Pennsylvania’s new law and its counterparts elsewhere do nothing to address these.

If you're still not convinced that, at the very least, implentation should be postponed until the spring, check out this report from the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center about all the problems in implementing this law. Then read this email.

“Here is a copy of the letter that I mailed to Judge Simpson last week regarding procuring the ID for my mother-in-law,” the reader wrote me. “I’m hoping that this time he will, at the least, postpone implementation of this law until the spring primary:

“Dear Judge Simpson,

“As you are to rule again on the validity of the Pennsylvania Voter ID law, I want to submit the following for your information:

“We finally managed last Tuesday, September 18, to get my 81 ½ year-old mother-in-law a Pennsylvania ID card. It took four – count them, FOUR – trips to various facilities and 1 ½ hours of wait time on the fourth attempt that ended only because the very nice people at the licensing facility cut us into the waiting line.

“When my mother-in-law moved back to Bethlehem from Florida last December, she decided she would no longer drive; hence, she did not need a driver’s license, but she did want to register to vote. We tried first last spring to get her an ID at one driver license facility on Route 191, but they said they did not issue IDs and we needed to go to the facility in Easton. So we went there, but, though she had some documentation, she did not have all that was required, so she couldn’t get one that time either. Then, after she procured her documentation, we tried last Monday, but . . . all the facilities are closed on Mondays!

Finally, this past Tuesday, we went back to the Easton facility where she procured a ticket for the line for photographs. An hour later, when her turn finally came, she was told, sorry – we had to go through the OTHER line to get the paperwork completed first and then we could wait another hour for her to go through the first waiting line for the second time to get her actual ID. Needless to say, neither of us was pleased, and I insisted on speaking to a supervisor who promptly put us ahead of the t20 or 30 people who were also waiting to be served to get her the right paperwork (that required her birth certificate, her Social Security card, her Florida license, and a receipt from Walgreens with her name and address on it – and they asked for a marriage certificate because – surprise! – her married name does not appear on her birth certificate). Having procured the paperwork, we were taken to the photo section, again jumping the line, where she was photographed and given her ID.

“Now, my husband and I are both college graduates, I have a master’s degree, we are both retired, and we each have a vehicle, so we were able to take her on these four – count them, FOUR – trips to procure her ID so she can vote. She is also in relatively good health so that the waiting, while tiring, was not impossible for her.

“What if she had given up driving and did not have us to take her?

“What if she were disabled and dependent on Lanta or her local church for assistance?

“What if she did not have her birth certificate, social security card, or Florida driver’s license?

“What if she had been born in another state and had had to pay fees to secure copies of her birth and marriage certificates?

“I have proudly served as a Judge of Elections for the past six years since my retirement, but I must tell you that I am having a hard time agreeing to deny registered voters in the district where I work, almost all known personally for their entire lifetimes by my other poll workers, the right to cast their ballots in a presidential election because of a law the purpose of which its originators have stated was to award Pennsylvania’s electoral votes to one of the candidates and deny them to the other. Of course, they can cast provisional votes, but then they still must procure the ID and present it to the Election Office within six days.

“I know that you have ruled previously that having to procure proper ID is not burdensome, and indeed, for all of us with valid driver’s licenses, it is not – but I do hope that you will consider the difficulties we encountered and at least postpone the implementation of this law until the May primaries, a much simpler election than this one and in which, unfortunately, far fewer citizens will wish to cast their votes.”

Don’t get me wrong. My feeling at this point is that people who want to vote should not wait for Judge Simpson’s ruling. Everyone of any party who cares about ensuring their neighbors’ right to vote should be doing everything possible to make sure everyone has the kind of photo ID that’s acceptable under this law.

But let’s stop pretending that only the laziest slobs will be able to fail to comply. It may be easy for you. For some people, it will be very difficult.

Trackbacks

Current Comments

I think that you are barking up at the wrong tree. Judge Simpson wrote a very erudite opinion, one that took into consideration all of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. I too don't like the law, but it's validity really has been decided. Take your frustration up with the Legislature, not the judge. His function is to uphold a law if at all possible. That's the parameters of his powers. He did that. Even the Supreme Court did not disagree with that; it sent the case back to the Judge to determine the law's impact on the ability of voters to register and comply with the new law in such a short period of time, not to redetermine the law's viability.

We may not like the decision, but it is, and his new opinion will be as well, beyond reproach (he is one of the best jurists on the Commonwealth Court. I have no doubt that the opinion, whatever it is, will be well-thought out and legally beyond attack). Again, complain to those that enacted the law.

In the interests of disclosure, I am a very old and dear friend of the judge. That does not affect my opinion.

Posted By: Greek | Sep 27, 2012 3:35:46 PM

Greek, the reader's comments and that report -- which is specifically about how poorly this is being implemented -- go to the heart of what they're asking the judge to look at. I never ripped Simpson. Even if it is constitutional, their implentation is making it too difficult for some people.

Posted By: Bill White | Sep 27, 2012 3:47:26 PM

Bill, I know and understand and agree with you. I just get upset that some might think that the Judge is politically motivated. I know that you don't, but others do. We both agree that he will be fair, impartial and judicious. That's all we can ask.

As I said before, I blame the Legislature and the Governor for this bill.

Thanks for responding.

Posted By: Greek | Sep 27, 2012 5:38:02 PM

Shocking idea, politically motivated judges. No one is required to uphold an unconstitutional law, no matter who was stupid enough to pass said law.

Posted By: DON | Sep 28, 2012 7:59:38 AM

This is a country that has a pretty awful record when it comes to voter eligibility. The founders excluded women, non-land owners and slaves (who were not even whole people by law) from voting. As these groups and their sympathizers sought full voting rights, later generations of leaders instituted poll taxes, literacy tests and other barriers to voting. It has taken two-plus centuries for most those barriers to be torn down and now we see the GOP trying to revert to the past, by putting up new barriers to access to the ballot.

Shame on Pennsylvania and other states for bringing back these hurdles. Shame on Charlie Dent for his uninformed statements in the Morning Call in defense of voter ID - citing cases that those pulling his puppet strings have provided him. I will bet that Charlie Dent has never received a legitimate complaint about voter fraud (one that was later proven) in his district since he first went on the public dole over 20 + years ago.

The very people voter ID is aimed at are the very people the founders put in their musket sites to keep from the polls -- women, minorities and the equivalent to then non-landowners, the renters, homeless and legal immigrants who cannot afford a car to drive.

It's disgusting. I suggest everyone who goes to the polls this November refuse to show ID. Make the lines go miles as the election judges don't know what to do.

Posted By: cbi | Sep 28, 2012 3:58:23 PM

Where I vote if I refuse to show voter ID they will assume I am a Democrat (although registered as an independent) and refuse to let me vote, a victory for the Repubs like Dent who pushed the bill. It is a true disgrace, but not allowing others to vote by wasting time or putting pressure on the poll workers is not a solution.

Posted By: DON | Sep 28, 2012 4:17:13 PM

Everyone would get a provisional ballot and be allowed to at least cast their vote. The issue then would be if the state had the nerve to deny tens of thousands of provisional ballots. Frankly, I doubt it as many incumbents in the state legislature would lose.

I agree it is not the tactic of choice, but it appears to be the only way a public statement can be made loudly and clearly.